Thoughts on the gay cake case

[PRmerger]

Why?

Alternatively -

1. If it is highly unlikely the scenario will ever happen the scenario itself is irrelevant so discussing it is a futile exercise.
2. You win. You’ve given an example of a hypothetical scenario where rape can be justified.
   Now what?

Indeed.

It has to have a logical premise, else it’s as otiose as saying, “So let’s say we have a married bachelor, and he decides to make a square circle using colorless numbers…THEN we could definitely say that this man would be justified in using gophers for golf clubs.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why?

Because thought experiments are designed to measure someone’s commitment to a concept. Everyday scenarios are not useful for that purpose. That is why the thought experiments are designed to be wildly improbable, but not impossible (unlike PRmerger’s suggestion, which contains a logical contradiction). What is the possibility that you will be part of the runaway trolley scenario? Or in a lifeboat dilemma? Very, very small. Yet, such scenarios are widely used in psychological and philosophical tests. Needless to say, you are not “forced” to participate.

Here is a cute story for you. A multibillionaire meets a woman and asks her if she would be willing to spend a night with him for one billion dollars. The woman imagines all the good things she could do with such a huge amount of money, and says “yes”. The man then says: “what about a hundred bucks? That’s all I have on me.” The woman is outraged and screams: “What kind of a woman do you thinks I am?”. The guy smiles: “Ma’am, we already established that. Now we are merely haggling over the price!”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why?

Because thought experiments are designed to measure someone’s commitment to a concept. Everyday scenarios are not useful for that purpose. That is why the thought experiments are designed to be wildly improbable, but not impossible (unlike PRmerger’s suggestion, which contains a logical contradiction). What is the possibility that you will be part of the runaway trolley scenario? Or in a lifeboat dilemma? Very, very small. Yet, such scenarios are widely used in psychological and philosophical tests. Needless to say, you are not “forced” to participate.

Here is a cute story for you. A multibillionaire meets a woman and asks her if she would be willing to spend a night with him for one billion dollars. The woman imagines all the good things she could do with such a huge amount of money, and says “yes”. The man then says: “what about a hundred bucks? That’s all I have on me.” The woman is outraged and screams: “What kind of a woman do you thinks I am?”. The guy smiles: “Ma’am, we already established that. Now we are merely haggling over the price!”.

 

[Rau]

…Here is a cute story for you. A multibillionaire meets a woman and asks her if she would be willing to spend a night with him for one billion dollars. The woman imagines all the good things she could do with such a huge amount of money, and says “yes”. The man then says: “what about a hundred bucks? That’s all I have on me.” The woman is outraged and screams: “What kind of a woman do you thinks I am?”. The guy smiles: “Ma’am, we already established that. Now we are merely haggling over the price!”.

Funny story, especially the observation that inflation has lifted the classic bounty from $1Mill to $1Bill!! But no matter our intentions for the bucks, we know we shouldn’t do evil (or assist another to do it) to secure them. Of course, spending a night might be quite innocent.

 

[Rau]

…You’ve given an example of a hypothetical scenario where rape can be justified.

Mink, the scenario “justifies” rape only given the particular premise under which the assessment of “is it justified?” is conducted!. For Pallas, I believe he would hold that an act is “justified” if the visible outcome after it looks better than were the act not done. So, it would be OK to shoot some innocent passing school girl dead if such act would (or perhaps, was believed to) persuade a bad man to not shoot two other innocents. [One dead is preferable to two dead - that much we all agree on. For Christians, the how you get there matters…]

It’s a philosophy that can justify anything at all in the right circumstances. It is not widely held - eg. most legal system don’t accept it.

 

[Rau]

…It is also stipulated that you are not allowed to deliberately kill the terrorist. (Though you can say that putting the gun to the head of the terrorist and pulling the trigger was not intended to kill the terrorist, his death was a foreseen but unintended consequence of pulling the trigger.)

This description is too sterile to determine the moral object of the act - if it is the good of self-preservation (with no other alternative) then truly it is moral and no homicide was committed. If it is a evil arising from personal vengeance, it is wrong. We don’t hold the view that all bad guys can be killed because that makes for a better world.

Also that you are not allowed to deliberately lie to the Gestapo about the whereabouts of some Jews; even if evasion does not work, while a direct lie would.

Perhaps a greater wisdom would hold that lying will put more lives in danger. Consider how that lie to the Gestapo is likely to play out in practice. But it is such extreme cases that are mostly used to justify lying as a path to happiness. eg. lying to one’s spouse to avoid hurt feelings, lying to their children to obtain some type of behavior, lying to one’s boss at work to avoid getting in trouble, lying to the government to obtain some type of benefit, and so on.

Yet, you are allowed to kill in self-defense and even allowed to kill in a war, where your personal safety is not in immediate jeopardy

. That a person dies is an evil outcome, but it’s not what makes an act immoral. That much is in common with your own philosophy.

Also you are allowed to lie to your child about the existence of Santa Claus. Don’t you see the lack of consistency here?

No. Nor do I understand myths and fairy tales to be lies.
catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-truth-about-santa-claus
newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia/

This principle [consequentialism] is purely secular, rational and logical.

No argument there. But I note that most legal systems don’t accept it either.

It does not require to appeal to some nebulous “higher authority”.

And hence ultimately it will be found wanting.

The only problem is that neither God’s existence, nor his alleged “laws” have ever been established.

Well, I think there is a deal of evidence. But it is called faith for a reason.

 

[minkymurph]

Because thought experiments are designed to measure someone’s commitment to a concept. Everyday scenarios are not useful for that purpose. That is why the thought experiments are designed to be wildly improbable, but not impossible (unlike PRmerger’s suggestion, which contains a logical contradiction). What is the possibility that you will be part of the runaway trolley scenario? Or in a lifeboat dilemma? Very, very small. Yet, such scenarios are widely used in psychological and philosophical tests. Needless to say, you are not “forced” to participate.

Here is a cute story for you. A multibillionaire meets a woman and asks her if she would be willing to spend a night with him for one billion dollars. The woman imagines all the good things she could do with such a huge amount of money, and says “yes”. The man then says: “what about a hundred bucks? That’s all I have on me.” The woman is outraged and screams: “What kind of a woman do you thinks I am?”. The guy smiles: “Ma’am, we already established that. Now we are merely haggling over the price!”.

Yes I’ve heard that story.

I agree that thought experiments are useful in evaluation of concepts or principles we hold to, but sooner or later we are compelled to apply it to realities. In reality no matter what concept or principle we hold to there will always be an exception to the rule. It is a rare occasion when there will no exception. Thus, it cannot be said our commitment to that principle or concept is wanting if in certain circumstances and for the sake of mercy or justice we relax the rules.

To explain, I read a case of priest who became involved in a plot to kill Hitler. He was involved with an underground movement against the Third Reich and kept a diary that was an account of how he struggled with his conscience. In his view murder was wrong, but he concluded by killing Hitler he could save thousands of innocent lives. The point is, the act itself is not justified, but rather the reason for which the act is carried out.

In terms of being forced to participate, there was a case in Belfast were an individual was excused for his role in a murder. (In his case it was deemed manslaughter) He was excused on the ground of duress. The gunmen wanted to use his van and for him to drive them to the scene, and whist he was gone his family were being held by gunmen. The victim was beaten to death and the defendant struck some blows during the attack - though much less so than the others - as he was told there would be consequences if he did not. Of course this is an extreme example, but it is an actual scenario sadly one that was not uncommon during the the ‘Troubles.’

 

[minkymurph]

Mink, the scenario “justifies” rape only given the particular premise under which the assessment of “is it justified?” is conducted!. For Pallas, I believe he would hold that an act is “justified” if the visible outcome after it looks better than were the act not done. So, it would be OK to shoot some innocent passing school girl dead if such act would (or perhaps, was believed to) persuade a bad man to not shoot two other innocents. [One dead is preferable to two dead - that much we all agree on. For Christians, the how you get there matters…]

It’s a philosophy that can justify anything at all in the right circumstances. It is not widely held - eg. most legal system don’t accept it.

I agree. How we get there matters.

The outcome is something that is evaluated on hindsight. Individuals who are in the situation as it is happening do not have hindsight to rely on.

As I believe someone else has already said, acts don’t exist in isolation and cannot be divorced from intentions and circumstances. If they could, nothing would be a crime.

 

[Rau]

I agree. How we get there matters.

The outcome is something that is evaluated on hindsight. Individuals who are in the situation as it is happening do not have hindsight to rely on.

Of course the actor can only factor in what he can foresee. With Consequentalism, only what one foresees can guide the actor, for this is essentially the only principle.

As I believe someone else has already said, acts don’t exist in isolation and cannot be divorced from intentions and circumstances. If they could, nothing would be a crime.

Certainly that’s true (in one sense), but it is often the cause of confusion and error in evaluating the fonts of morality.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Funny story, especially the observation that inflation has lifted the classic bounty from $1Mill to $1Bill!! But no matter our intentions for the bucks, we know we shouldn’t do evil (or assist another to do it) to secure them. Of course, spending a night might be quite innocent.

There is no mutually accepted definition of “evil”. It is just another label, that people slap on activities they do not agree with.

By the way, one of the standard “defenses” when the problem of evil is discussed that God allows “evils”, so he can bring some unspecified “greater good” from it. Now is it or is it not possible that “evil” can lead to “good”? Or is it only God’s prerogative to do so?

---

This description is too sterile to determine the moral object of the act - if it is the good of self-preservation (with no other alternative) then truly it is moral and no homicide was committed.

Well, all the principles are “sterile”. None of them are “fleshed out” - for a reason. They need to be as generic as possible, otherwise they would not be general principles.

Perhaps a greater wisdom would hold that lying will put more lives in danger.

Sorry, “perhaps” or “maybe” are not valid objections. The stipulated problem is simple: “you can lie about the whereabouts of the fugitives, and thus save them, or you tell the truth, and let them perish”. There are no extra parameters. A “sterile” set of circumstances, if you will.

That a person dies is an evil outcome, but it’s not what makes an act immoral. That much is in common with your own philosophy.

Excellent. Now is the time to start “haggling” over the price. We agree that killing in self-defense is a justified action. (Implicitly understood: “when no other option is available”, so we do not have to spell this out again). We also agree that it is permissible to kill in the protection of others, even if one is not in immediate danger - preventive killing, if you will. This is what happens in a just or defensive war.

So, what about other options? Would it be acceptable to lie and thus create a misdirection? Isn’t a “lie” less serious than killing? What about torturing the terrorist to reveal the whereabouts of a “dirty bomb” hidden somewhere in New York? What about creating a situation when the terrorist is convinced that his daughter will be raped and tortured, unless he abandons what he was planning to do? Mind you it is just a threat, but a very convincing one. Could be a fake video which is possible to create with modern technology? Would that be acceptable?

In other words, where do YOU draw the line? And what kind of justification can you present for THAT particular line? What is the price that you are NOT willing to pay to save others?

The little story about the billion (or million) dollars has a hidden meaning, namely: everyone has a price (not necessarily in monetary terms). In the book of 1984 there is a phrase: “Room one-oh-one”, to describe the most horrible situation in world, something that cannot be endured. (I would like to believe that the writer was wrong, but I see no evidence for it.)

No. Nor do I understand myths and fairy tales to be lies.

Shall we quibble over semantics? A “lie” is to tell something that is not true. Talking about Santa Claus is a lie - albeit it is a “white” lie.

No argument there. But I note that most legal systems don’t accept it either.

I don’t think so. Most legal systems demand to take all the circumstances into consideration, both the mitigating ones, and the exacerbating ones. And an attempt to murder someone does not carry the same penalty as a successful act.

And hence ultimately it will be found wanting.

How would you KNOW that?

Well, I think there is a deal of evidence. But it is called faith for a reason.

Sure thing. The problem is that the evidence is not compelling for the non-Christians. I was astonished when I first read in the catechism that the existence of God does not need faith, it can be known with pure human reason. I was eagerly awaiting the “proof”, which - of course - was never forthcoming.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I agree that thought experiments are useful in evaluation of concepts or principles we hold to, but sooner or later we are compelled to apply it to realities. In reality no matter what concept or principle we hold to there will always be an exception to the rule. It is a rare occasion when there will no exception. Thus, it cannot be said our commitment to that principle or concept is wanting if in certain circumstances and for the sake of mercy or justice we relax the rules.

Hopefully such a scenario will never come to reality for us. But it is useful to contemplate them.

To explain, I read a case of priest who became involved in a plot to kill Hitler. He was involved with an underground movement against the Third Reich and kept a diary that was an account of how he struggled with his conscience. In his view murder was wrong, but he concluded by killing Hitler he could save thousands of innocent lives. The point is, the act itself is not justified, but rather the reason for which the act is carried out.

Whoa! That is exactly what I say, with a slightly different wording. The act and the circumstances together may form a justifiable sequence of events.

In terms of being forced to participate, there was a case in Belfast were an individual was excused for his role in a murder. (In his case it was deemed manslaughter) He was excused on the ground of duress. The gunmen wanted to use his van and for him to drive them to the scene, and whist he was gone his family were being held by gunmen. The victim was beaten to death and the defendant struck some blows during the attack - though much less so than the others - as he was told there would be consequences if he did not. Of course this is an extreme example, but it is an actual scenario sadly one that was not uncommon during the the ‘Troubles.’

I am not sure I understand correctly. I think this is what you meant:

There was this individual (call him “John”) whose family was taken hostage, and who was forced to drive the terrorists to a place. The terrorists beat someone to death, and forced “John” to participate, by threatening to hurt his family if he resisted.

If that is what you described, then it was obvious that “John” was NOT acting on his own accord, the threat to his family forced him to participate, so he was rightfully excused.

 

[PRmerger]

Because thought experiments are designed to measure someone’s commitment to a concept. Everyday scenarios are not useful for that purpose. That is why the thought experiments are designed to be wildly improbable, but not impossible (unlike PRmerger’s suggestion, which contains a logical contradiction).

Your scenario, too, contains an illogical proposition: a daddy who cares so much about his daughter that he would prevent her rape and a daddy who cares so little about his daughter that he is the cause of her death.

#illogical
#makesnosense
#absurd

 

[PRmerger]

If that is what you described, then it was obvious that “John” was NOT acting on his own accord, the threat to his family forced him to participate, so he was rightfully excused.

I think you are being inconsistent here. How do you assert someone being “rightfully” anything?

Isn’t that, as you propose, simply a human construct?

Kind of as ridiculous as saying, “It’s rightful to prefer turnips over potatoes?”

 

[minkymurph]

Whoa! That is exactly what I say, with a slightly different wording. The act and the circumstances together may form a justifiable sequence of events.

It’s not exactly what I was saying. The act itself is not justified. The reason or reasons why the act was carried out may be sufficient to excuse the individual for what they did.

There was this individual (call him “John”) whose family was taken hostage, and who was forced to drive the terrorists to a place. The terrorists beat someone to death, and forced “John” to participate, by threatening to hurt his family if he resisted.

If that is what you described, then it was obvious that “John” was NOT acting on his own accord, the threat to his family forced him to participate, so he was rightfully excused.

He was rightfully excused because he was acting under duress, but in being excused the actual act was not justified. He consented to an act and carried it out due to the threat. My point is there are circumstances in which individuals are forced to do something they do not want to. We may not want to pay taxes but do so under duress to avoid punishment. We may not want to pay an unreasonably high fee for withdrawing money from a cash machine in an airport, but if we have no money and all cash machines charge a high fee we have little choice. Such situations negative the argument no one is forced to do anything against their will.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not exactly what I was saying. The act itself is not justified. The reason or reasons why the act was carried out may be sufficient to excuse the individual for what they did.

Indeed.

The reasons why this particular act was carried out may impinge upon one’s culpability, but they do not affect whatsoever the morality of the act.

That is, it is still objectively immoral, but one’s guilt may be lessened depending upon the motivations.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Your scenario, too, contains an illogical proposition: a daddy who cares so much about his daughter that he would prevent her rape and a daddy who cares so little about his daughter that he is the cause of her death.

Have you heard the expression: “a fate worse than death”? The scenario may contain a logical inconsistency, but not a logical contradiction - unlike the married bachelor you proposed. But I am willing accommodate you with a slight modification of the scenario: the terrorist act would leave both the terrorist and his family intact.

I think you are being inconsistent here. How do you assert someone being “rightfully” anything?

Isn’t that, as you propose, simply a human construct?

Yes, so what? According to my subjective principle, which is shared by the overwhelming majority of the people. That does not make it “absolute”.

 

[PRmerger]

Have you heard the expression: “a fate worse than death”? The scenario may contain a logical inconsistency, but not a logical contradiction - unlike the married bachelor you proposed.

Fair enough.

But I am willing accommodate you with a slight modification of the scenario: the terrorist act would leave both the terrorist and his family intact.

Noted.

Fact remains: raping a 3 yr old would be a most reprehensible act and absolutely immoral.

The evil in the action of a man who could do such an action could not bring about a good–as Peter Plato suggested–any society which would accept such a bargain has ceded its moral sense and the only society which could survive such a bargain would be one devoid of any moral sense.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s not exactly what I was saying. The act itself is not justified. The reason or reasons why the act was carried out may be sufficient to excuse the individual for what they did.

Which is semantically the same as saying that the act was justified. It is no coincidence that killing in self defense is called “justified homicide” or “justified manslaughter”.

 

[PRmerger]

Which is semantically the same as saying that the act was justified. It is no coincidence that killing in self defense is called “justified homicide” or “justified manslaughter”.

But not justified murder, right?

Murder can never be justified.

 

[Personanongrata]

It’s not discrimination against a group of people, but a certain ceremony. For instance the laws that allowed a baker to not bake a cake for a same sex wedding did not allow bakers to refuse to bake ordinary cakes for gay people.

I have to wonder how many of “those” bakers would self - identify their beliefs. They could put a sign in their business window stating their beliefs and then gay people probably won’t even enter. I think the bulk of them are cowards in that respect.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.